The main legal point established in the judgment is that the jurisdiction of the Civil Court was not ousted by the provisions of the Wakf Act, and the Tribunal's jurisdiction was limited to specific instances related to the administration and management of wakf properties.

1. This Revision is directed against the order in I.A. No.78 of 2995 in AS. No.10 of 2005 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Salem.

2. Though all the respondents were served, they have not entered appearance either in person or through counsel. Therefore, the Civil Revision Petition is taken up for final hearing in their absence and decided on merits.

3. The petitioner herein, is the defendant in O.S. No.815 of 1998 on the file the District Munsif Court, Salem. The petitioner is a Jamad Committee represented by its Muthavalli. The suit property is a wakf property and the respondents are the tenants of various portions of the wakf property. The tenants have instituted the above Suit for permanent injunction, restraining the defendant/petitioner herein or their office bearers, servants, from causing any disturbance to the plaintiffs/respondents possession and enjoyment of the property and for further reliefs.

4. The petitioner herein has filed a written statement in the said Suit, contending inter (Ilia that the property is a wakf property, covered under the provision of Section 83(1) of the Wakf Act, 1995. The State Government have constituted the Wakf Tribunal at Salem and therefore, the District Munsif Court, Salem lacks jurisdiction to try the Suit. The petitioner has also contended that the steps have already been taken to evict the tenants/respondents from suit property for nonpayment of rents. They prayed for dismissal of the Suit on the ground of lack of jurisdiction.

5. The lower Court overruled the objections relating to the maintainability of the Suit and granted permanent injunction. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has preferred an Appeal in AS. No.12 of 2005 on the file of the Additional Subordinate Judge, Salem. Pending disposal of the Appeal, the petitioner has filed I.A. No.78 of 2005, praying for transfer of the Appeal to the Wakf Tribunal, as contemplated under the Wakf Act, 1995.

6. In the said Interlocutory Application, the petitioner has submitted that they have instituted separate Suits in O.S. Nos.117, 119, 143, 99, 155 and 153 of 1997 on the file of the District Muncif Court, Salem, against the respondents herein for recovery of possession and for further reliefs. They further submitted that pursuant to the constitution of the Wakf Tribunal under the Wakf Act, all these seven Suits, filed against the tenants/respondents have been transferred to the Wakf Tribunal (Subordinate Court, Salem) and pending for final disposal.

7. The respondents herein resisted the above Application contending inter a/ia that the Wakf Tribunal can adjudicate only if the dispute raised in the Suit falls under anyone of the provisions of the Wakf Act. As there is no dispute about the suit property being a Wakf property, the relief of enforcement of injunction, being a civil right, cannot be adjudicated before the Wakf Tribunal.

8. On contest, the First Appellate Court, observed that, the Trial Court, while granting a decree of injunction, framed a specific issue with regard to maintainability of the Suit and found that it is maintainable. The plea raised in the Appeal was also about the maintainability of the Suit and in such circumstances, it is not necessary to decide the question of maintainability, as a preliminary issue in the First Appeal and therefore, dismissed the application for transfer. Against which, the petitioner has preferred this present Civil Revision Petition.

9. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that pursuant to the constitution of the Tribunal under the Wakf Act, 1995, the Appellate Court ought to have decided the issue relating to the jurisdiction, as a preliminary issue and transferred the matter to the Wakf Tribunal. He further submitted that in view of the specific provisions under Sections 83 and 85 of the Wakf Act, the Suit instituted by the tenants for a permanent injunction ought to have been rejected under Order 7, Rule 11 of C.P.C. He also submitted that Section